Fat loss confusion

[rustypouch]

Would you be willing to elucidate?

Rationality being that some foods are more satiating than other for the same energy consume, someone's weight isn't due to genetics, and that calorie counts might not be *exactly* perfect and people can have differences in absorption.

BS being the whole diets don't work thing.

Over complicating is blaming the rising obesity rates on something rather than over consumption, when average daily calorie intake is almost perfectly correlated with obesity levels.

Here's some interesting pages that have great graphs: http://geeksta.net/visualizations/calories-us/
http://www.thecooksden.com/calories/

Are there other factors at play? Maybe.

But if obesity is such a concern, why not go after the factors that are the simplest, and have the greatest influence, and are consistent with how we know the world to work? Why try to blame something other than eating to much?

 

[casebro]

CI-CO fersure, but the biggest complication is appetite. How to make me want to NOT eat?

Appetite control is probably all mental, biochemical, and neuro-immune feedback. And the state of the art today sucks.

 

[rustypouch]

CI-CO fersure, but the biggest complication is appetite. How to make me want to NOT eat?

Appetite control is probably all mental, biochemical, and neuro-immune feedback. And the state of the art today sucks.

Absolutely. It's simple, but not easy. Resisting a primal urge for long term benefits. There's also eating when not hungry, because of habit, boredom, stress, something delicious in front of you... There's also the conditioning against wasting food, and having to finish everything, even if you're not hungry.

 

[Ziggurat]

But if obesity is such a concern, why not go after the factors that are the simplest, and have the greatest influence, and are consistent with how we know the world to work? Why try to blame something other than eating to much?

I agree that eating too much is the problem, but I think that link is still relevant to that problem. For a lot of people, when they go "on a diet", they don't just try to reduce the portion sizes on what they're currently eating, they also try to change what food they eat. Paleo, Atkins, vegan, whatever. And when you're changing what you eat, not simply how much you eat, the fact that it's difficult to compare calories across different kinds of food (for all the technical reasons given) becomes rather important. Maybe you think you've reduced your calories but haven't really. Maybe you think you've done a modest reduction, but in fact you're getting a lot less, and won't have the willpower to stick with it.

All of this is, of course, quite solvable: you just make changes incrementally, carefully track the results, and adjust accordingly. But most people simply aren't going to be that methodical. At best, most people will just try to count calories, and it won't always work.

 

[casebro]

Hypertension and obesity

I';m on Clonidine now, and it works. It works in the central nervous system. Curious as to how it works, I came on a paper that explains how the CNS is involved in HPTN. Seems the brain sends a signal to raise BP, which also releases T cells. T cells glom onto glial cells, which effect neurons, which send the message to raise BP. Rinse, repeat, soon 250/170. Clonidine interferes with that feedback loop.

Pertinent to this thread, it also mentioned that the HPTN comes first and is the cause of obesity. Which is true for my history. Now, obesity is multifactorial, and I know obese folks without HPTN. I assume the HPTN-> obesity is due to the immune functioning?

I just thought I would throw out a cart before the horse idea

 

[blutoski]

My version is "Kitchen for weightloss; Gym for other health benefits."

Here's a new study on the topic of us having a limited amount of 'oomph' during the day, such that exercise makes us compensate with less energy in our other activities, for little or no net gain:

• [Constrained Total Energy Expenditure and Metabolic Adaptation to Physical Activity in Adult Humans]

And, related to the findings that we're about as 'active' as previous generations, as far back as we have records... that's a longitudinal study; we find the same horizontally. Meaning: contemporary obese people are as active as contemporary thin people, even when we compare across nations. (ie: an obese American is as active as a thin Indian):

• [Energy expenditure in adults living in developing compared with industrialized countries: a meta-analysis of doubly labeled water studies]

The best model that explains the literature is that exercise may be important for health, but probably not a critical factor for weight loss.

Another study on this theme crossed my desk today: [Constrained Total Energy Expenditure and Metabolic Adaptation to Physical Activity in Adult Humans]

High Level Summary:

• We measured total energy expenditure and physical activity in a large adult sample
• Above moderate activity levels, total energy expenditure plateaued
• Body fat percentage was positively related to total energy expenditure
• Activity intensity was inversely related to total energy expenditure

My interpretation of their results is that there can be benefits for people who increase their level of activity from none to moderate. As activity level increases, the benefits diminish and eventually become negative for most people.

There will always be outliers, of course. An example is professional athletes - they're probably an exception because they're also closely monitoring their caloric intakes. Most dieters just don't have these resources, so this study seems to be meaningful to the general population.